In 2004, the American Boxer Club has the right to amend or rewrite its breed Standard as per AKC regulations. To that end, it is important that the Standard Committee and any interested ABC members and fanciers begin to review areas that might invite potential changes. Such revisions will undoubtedly be a reflection of the will of the members and the judges and breeders for whom the Standard is all important.

There are several questions that come up repeatedly in Boxer conversation. First, and in no order of importance, there is the issue of eye color. In one area of the Standard it tells us that "Eyes [should be] dark brown in color" and in the section under Faults it states that eyes " [should not be] noticeably lighter than the ground color of the coat." Strictly speaking, a pale fawn dog could then sport eyes that would be quite light on a color scale. The Standard cannot have it both ways, and undoubtedly will respond to the ambiguity and sharpen the language. At the present time there is no mention of unpigmented third eyelids. In the 1962 Standard "the eye must have a dark rim." "Visible conjuctiva (haws)" were specifically mentioned as a fault. As breeders we discuss this issue frequently—should it appear in our Standard again?

Ears, ears, ears. The membership of the ABC, in a majority vote in 1998, voted to keep the tradition of cropped ears. There is no description of a natural ear in the Standard. Rather it says "Ears are cropped." There was a very vocal minority opting for choice in the matter of cropping, and surely these issues will resurface with partisan supporters taking opposing positions. Some judges have excused natural-eared dogs, some have awarded them points, and others just quietly put them at the end of the line. Undoubtedly, the Standard Committee will be reviewing the "ear wars." It will be up to the membership to vote again on any potential revision. 

In a position paper sent to judges in 2000, the Standard Committee urged judges to afford so-called "plain" or "classic" boxers a fair shake in the breed ring, reminding them that there is no requirement in the Standard that Boxers have any amount of white on them at all—just that IF they have white markings, they must not exceed 1/3 of the coat’s entire surface (disqualification). Perhaps it is time to consider incorporating part of this position paper in the section of the Standard dealing with color.

There has been considerable discussion among breeders as to the proper height range for both male and female boxers. At present, males who fall within the recommended 22 ½ - 25" are often dwarfed by animals that are taller than the guidelines. And there are similar tendencies towards producing females that exceed 23 ½". At what point do deviations from guidelines become faults? Should the Standard be altered to accommodate taller dogs? Should size limitations be made more restrictive? And when do these same taller dogs depart from the declaration at the beginning of the Standard that the Boxer should be "medium-sized"?

These and other topics are surely subjects for lively discussion. Presumably, the Standard Committee will be up to the task at hand and would surely welcome input from Boxer fanciers everywhere.